|
BarbarianElephant posted:Liberals don't stand out so much on the internet because saying nice things about people vanishes into the background hum of the world, but unloading a rifle of racial epithets and hate certainly sticks in the mind. Lol this is totally wrong. Just look at blowfish's avatar. Right-wing Internet users do not have a monopoly on getting worked up and lobbing personal attacks against other internet users. You only notice the right wing ones because they, unlike the left-wing ones, rile you up. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Dec 19, 2016 |
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:It's true, in the efforts to silence opposing voices, liberals are hobbling themselves and making themselves less and less effective in he arena of public discourse I have no idea what is going on in other sites like Twitter, etc. because I don't read them, but this is definitely the case for many posters in D&D. There are some good liberal posters on this forum who make good, convincing arguments, but many liberal posters on this forum don't know how to do much more than cheerlead, write snarky posts aimed at conservatives, press the report button whenever someone writes a post that doesn't totally validate their worldview, or take the least charitable interpretation of posts by conservative posters and get really outraged. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Dec 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:I don't understand this particular definition. How is, say, a programmer that makes $125,000 year not just as bad as an a trust fund kid who makes the same? Here are some arguments: ostensibly, the programmer is contributing to society by working. The trust fund kid isn't really doing anything other than inheriting a lot of money. The programmer is also not in as great of a position if somehow he loses his livelihood due to illness or some other reason. He also isn't anywhere near as rich as the trust fund kid if the trust fund kid is making $125,000 each year on investments. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:The word "privilege" is not designed to make you feel bad about yourself and apologise for being born a white man. It's so that you stop saying things like "We all start out from a level playing field! If black people don't do so well, maybe they should blame their own attitude or maybe they are just genetically inferior!" It is though. Instead of talking about disadvantaged social groups and focusing on how much worse they have it when compared to other social groups and how that should be fixed, the term privilege is kind of attacking and blaming rich/white/male/etc. people for being born that way and for being who they are. I don't think that it was an accident that we talk about how men have privilege instead of talking how women are disadvantaged and should have the same opportunities as men.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
ATP5G1 posted:The reason you can't just talk about disadvantages is because inevitably someone barges in saying that Those People Just Need To Work Harder Like I Did. People can still say this same kind of stuff if you prefer to talk about privilege instead of disadvantage. 'Privilege' doesn't really add anything to the idea that some people have more advantages than others in society. The reason why the word privilege was coined was either 1) because people thought that it would be rude or politically incorrect to refer to some groups of people as disadvantaged (it could kind of make it sound like they have personal issues or something) or 2) to place blame on rich/white/male/etc people for being born that way. It's not really a word with deep meaning--it is just a marketing term, IMO. Edit: I'm not necessarily saying that it is bad or unfair to talk about privilege and blame rich/white/male/etc people for being themselves. They are the ones who tend to write the rules of society, after all, and society is a little more messed up than it could or should be. But it is a little delusional to claim that the term privilege isn't antagonizing. Of course it is. That's the point of the term. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:This is actually probably true for all sciences, not just gender science. Gender science is pretty privileged compared to the history of gawking that other fields of study and discourse has had to put up with over the centuries. Is it any more intolerable in this case? People in other scientific fields get dumped on for using misleading terminology, jargon or euphemisms all the time. People in the physical sciences will often create and employ new, fantastical sounding terminology for normal, common, well-known and understood ideas or scientific phenomena to make their research sound more novel and exciting. They also use euphemisms and misdirection to hide disappointing or unsavory aspects of their research. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Privilege is being so supper upset a label dare get applied to your groups and having your solution be that a even more negative label gets applied to the other groups. silence_kit posted:Edit: I'm not necessarily saying that it is bad or unfair to talk about privilege and blame rich/white/male/etc people for being themselves. They are the ones who tend to write the rules of society, after all, and society is a little more messed up than it could or should be. But it is a little delusional to claim that the term privilege isn't antagonizing. Of course it is. That's the point of the term.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:the only solution would be to not challenge inequality which is obviously unacceptable. To rephrase your argument, you are saying that not agreeing with Tiny Brontosaurus 100% of the time is the same as agreeing with her 0% of the time. Obviously that's bogus.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, but if you find labels antagonizing why specifically should your group get to avoid them and it should fall on the other groups to have them? If you find it harmful or upsetting to have labels why should you get to be the only group that is free of them? When I say that the term is antagonizing, I'm not saying that you should never use the term. Maybe your goal is to be antagonizing and to shame people into being better behaved, to vote certain ways, and donate to or participate in certain causes. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like that is one of the basic cores of 'privilege", the idea that one group is the normal default and everyone else is the deviant. That there are girl's bikes and bikes. I assume that social justice proponents' vision of an ideal society would be that everybody would get treated the way rich/white/male/etc people are treated now. The new normal at least would be more like that than having everyone be treated in the same way that poor/black/female/etc people are now. It could be argued that 'privilege' isn't a great term because 'privilege' shouldn't be a privilege and should just be normal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In order to effectively communicate ideas you should use effective language, privilege is a good word for the concept it describes because it is effective at communicating the idea. If you would like to use a less effective term IMO, privilege is an effective term only if you think it is effective to shame people into acting in different ways. Whether that's effective is debatable. In your defense, it is used in many sects of Christianity and is at least somewhat effective. OwlFancier posted:Someone who is deeply offended by someone describing a profound injustice with the word "privilege" is actually the one at fault, this isn't arbitrary antagonism about a maybe sort of not that important subject, this is a word which has a well understood meaning becoming the subject of much anguished wailing by people who are very upset that perhaps they are contributing to the injustice it describes, and rather than understanding that they instead are diving right into reactionary bollocks. They're the ones at fault here, This is just more of that George W Bush thinking: "you're either with us or against us."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If you're going to talk about "optics" and words/phrases being antagonistic you should probably not suggest that we instead imply that being poor, non-white, or a woman is abnormal. Lol, your reading comprehension is certainly below normal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:The problem is that privilege is/has become a word with a lot of negative connotations. It's very bizarre for posters on SA, who otherwise are obsessed with the meaning of words, to feign ignorance and overlook the normal English meaning of the word 'privilege' and claim that the social justice term privilege isn't antagonizing at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, so labels are antagonizing and used to shame but your suggestion is we should then NOT use the label on white people and only use it for black people? ? I'm not sure where you are getting this from. To use everybody's favorite term of which without it it is impossible to understand inequality in society, I never said that black people are privileged relative to white people. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Words have different meanings in different fields. Who would have thought? Do you also agree that it's only a theory of evolution, too? Lol yes I'm sure when the term privilege was coined to refer to social inequality the author was blissfully ignorant of the definition and connotations of the normal English word.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:13
|
|